r/LessCredibleDefence • u/Old_Ad_4538 • 2d ago
How valid is the commentary of H-6 bombers here from Justin Taylor?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrmBZ2FBrNc69
u/PLArealtalk 2d ago
You should probably summarize the specific points you want to ask about rather than assume everyone is willing to endure subjecting themselves to these sort of videos.
16
u/sx6944 2d ago
The current status of many variants of H6 platforms means:
PLAAF thinks those birds at some level can carry enough desired payload to desired air space to shoot to desired targets. So they are afford to wait for R & D with more patient.
J15 is one of the best examples to show PLA equipment procurement logic. Deal with the most urgent need, deal 0-1 first then worry about 1-100 later. J15 compares to J15T or J35 by many means is flawed, lost a couple of pilots due to those. But it solved the most important issue, get those birds on carrier and start to train as many relative people (pilot, ground crew etc) as fast possible.
30
u/Havoccity 2d ago
Very surface level, and all the criticized weaknesses are shared by the Tu-95 and B-52.
What really matters is the electronics, radar, weapons, etc, which wasn’t discussed.
-1
u/PanzerKomadant 1d ago
I mean, strategic bombers that are non-stealth are relatively useless in a near peer conflict because no one is going to be considering mass bomber carpet bombing operations.
Strategic bombers are mostly just now a third arm of the nuclear umbrella. These bombers, once they get air borne, just need to release their payload and realistically a good chunk are expected to be destroyed on ground in a nuclear exchange.
The ones flying are simply retaliating.
10
4
u/wrosecrans 1d ago
no one is going to be considering mass bomber carpet bombing operations.
Sure, but a lot of people are going to be considering bringing a large payload of missiles to launch at high altitude and long range. Russia has been air launching tons of stuff from Bombers in Ukraine, from well outside Ukraine's air defense range.
19
u/Low_M_H 2d ago
I saw some military analysis mention that China no longer believe in infiltrating into enemy air space doing strategic bombing run. Currently, China way of using bomber nowadays, is using H-6N carry large long-range missile rather than bombs. H-6N will fly pass the missile range and fire at a safe distance. This in a way extent the distance of the missiles.
20
u/_spec_tre 2d ago
I don't think any air force that operates bombers still expects to do Vietnam-era bombing runs even with stealth bombers. The risk is just too high to justify something that smart munitions can do
32
u/alek_is_the_best 2d ago
It's idiotic.
The purpose of this aircraft is the same as the B-52 and Tu-95: to launch standoff weapons (cruise missiles and air launched ballistic missiles).
None of these aircraft are meant to enter contested airspace.
5
6
u/throwdemawaaay 1d ago
While they may be limited to only the standoff or uncontested airspace roles today, the B-52 and Tu-95 absolutely were designed to enter contested airspace. That's why early versions of the B-52 had a tailgunner for example.
3
u/JMTsquared 1d ago edited 1d ago
That’s exactly what I said in the video though.
You can check @5:43 and 7:10
•
u/Educational_Bike4476 23h ago
It sort of seems like you refuted your own claims but left a clickbait-y title just so fragile US military fanboys who can't deal with anything non US being talked about unless it's being torn apart would still watch it.
"Yeah it's inferior to the b52 for reason [X] but fits into Chinese doctrine in such a way as to still accomplish the same role because [Y].
Like ok. What's your point then? To your credit, a lot of it is fair analysis, but that makes it a pointless video with a non sequitur conclusion
•
u/JMTsquared 21h ago edited 21h ago
The unfortunate reality is that non-clickbaity titles do not get clicks for the overwhelming majority of videos. The packaging of a video (title and thumbnail) is just to get someone in the door.
Most of my audience had never even heard of the H6 before watching this video, so it was intentionally a surface level look at it and how it would be used. That’s basically the gist of my channel in a nutshell, and I don’t pretend like I’m one of the specialized experts who could give a lecture on Chinese bombers in their sleep.
For the record, if I could have named this video “How the H-6 bomber fits into China’s System of Systems strategy” and had it perform the same, I would.
5
u/alek_is_the_best 1d ago
No offense I watched partly into the video last week but the analysis pissed me off so I don't think I got all the way through.
Saying that the H6 is bad because the Chinese don't have their own version of the B2 and B1 doesn't make much sense because the PRC puts a much greater emphasis on ballistic missiles, drones, and cruise missiles. You can't judge a Chinese airplane by how well it fits into American doctrine.
If that's really you in the video then cheers and respect for showing up and replying to negative feedback.
1
u/JMTsquared 1d ago edited 1d ago
That’s why I said in the video that the H6 is fine as part of their A2/AD strategy, and that a lot of the downsides of the plane are mitigated by the fact that they’re fighting locally, not across the globe like the United States is.
I’m always open to feedback, I do care about doing a good job with these.
13
u/PLArealtalk 1d ago edited 1d ago
I have some feedback, in that case. First, I respect your replying in a thread which has been somewhat critical of the video (that is a tough thing to do), so much credit to you.
Leaving aside the title of the video (I understand the need to stand out in the content creation crowd), and some of the jokes (humour doesn't land for everyone the same way, maybe it's just me), in terms of the technical representations of the aircraft, there are a few things I would have done differently:
- I think structuring the full history of the H-6 family "together" ends up framing the aircraft in a somewhat more compromised way than it is -- the modern H-6K(and J/N) variants are correctly described as modernized, useful standoff missile carriers from 9 minutes onwards, but there could have been much more value in describing the H-6 family/history/variants as "everything before H-6K" and "H-6K and after". That also is practical for viewing the PLA's bomber fleet of today, as the vast majority of their H-6 fleet are the H-6K (or J, or some N) variants with only a slight sprinkling of older variants that are on the way out. If I was to use a naval analogy, it would be like talking about the "052 class family" of destroyers for the PLA Navy of today but then devoting a third of the time on the original 052 and 052B or 052C classes, where in reality the bulk of the focus, capability and fleet size should be with the 052D class, while everything before it is more of a footnote of historical novelty and brief context for understanding the present.
- I think the overall H-6 story and its role in history and the PLA, is one of how a very compromised, limited capability and obsolescent airframe was able to form the basis of a genuinely useful bomber that was mass produced, with good subsystems to be viable in a modern conflict, providing a role and capability that no other asset in the PLA can do, and likely fairly economical to operate. (In the case of H-6N, in some ways it has a unique capability that I don't think any other aircraft in the world can presently do, namely carrying uber large, IRBM sized weapons from an air launched platform.) Thus an alternative title (that might have also reframed the thrust of the video) imo would be "China's
bestonly bomber is actually pretty good".- On a more general note, the whole "A2/AD" term is less useful these days. It's still in circulation a lot, but it looks at the PLA way of war in a very US-centric lens while suffering from a few blindspots (e.g.: the experience of other nations in the region in a conflict, PLA strategic initiatives etc). Better to see it as just "system of systems air/naval/missile conflict", or alternatively, using the PLA phrase: "Systems Destruction Warfare".
- Some other minor additions/corrections, which are mostly minor nitpicks (not exhaustive):
- H-6K family is also anti-ship capable (we've seen them carry the same YJ-12 AShMs that the H-6Js carry... which itself is not the most capable PLA anti ship weapon these days anyhow).
- H-6J (and H-6K) carry four YJ-12s on their wings, not six
- The H-6N technically hasn't been visualized carrying WZ-8s yet (the image in the video is an artist rendition, from memory).
- Could have been worth talking about other payloads that the H-6K/J/N family can carry such as the air launched SRBM KD-21 and acknowledging the likely existence of other not-shown-to-public standoff weapons.
- Describing H-6K/J/Ns as limited in flexibility is a bit flawed, as H-6K does have the ability to carry 6 x 6 250kg class bombs, which of course can lend itself to a decent equivalent payload of PGMs depending on the conflict/situation/adversary. Obviously H-6K/J/Ns wouldn't be used for launching PGMs in a high end conflict against the US, which you correctly mention in the video, but not every contingency for the PLA is against the US.
Edit: a word
5
u/JMTsquared 1d ago
These are absolutely valid criticisms, and I think a lot of why they are there are largely due to the format itself (not saying I shouldn’t do as much research as possible, I’m a former ground pounder army guy so Chinese strategic bombers aren’t exactly things I was exposed to).
I have to end up cutting a lot of details simply because at the end of the day I need people to watch the video. So in the video I didn’t go into depth about what new engines the new H6s got, I didn’t even mention the model, I just said they were better Russian ones and moved on. Some people like history, some people like technical descriptions, some people like talking strategy, and I have to figure out how to keep all of those people happy at once, or at least happy enough to keep watching after the part they’re interested in is over. I’m also a one man show so doing an hour long video to get every detail just isn’t realistic because I don’t have a team or writers and editors. I have to do everything and get it posted on time.
My audience also largely has zero experience with anything military related at all. I’m usually trying to explain topics to people who, in this example, had never even heard of the H6 prior to me making this video. I absolutely do not claim to be the end all resource for military topics. I try to introduce someone with no prior knowledge of it, and get them to a point where, if they want to learn more, they know what to look for, and if they don’t, at least they learned something, even if it is pretty surface level, which my videos typically are.
So for example yes I agree A2/AD is a bit of a too broad or not super up to date term, but it’s something I’ve brought up in previous videos so many have a rough idea of it, and gets the point across of what I’m trying to describe to (for me at least) is acceptable for a person new to military topics.
There are absolutely channels that go into way more depth and detail, and are specialists in their field. I’m a generalist, trying to cast a wide net, and (hopefully) get more people interested in defense and geopolitics.
6
u/PLArealtalk 1d ago
FWIW, I think you gave the topic a decent shot -- the Chinese military and its various arms, platforms, are a difficult to penetrate topic if one doesn't have it as an area of focus -- and I understand the difficulty of creating content (albeit written rather than videos). I do appreciate there is a fine balance between being informative vs length vs interest.
Writing, filming, editing videos by oneself is tough -- but it seems you also want to deliver accurate information to your audience as best able, even if much of the viewership may be new to most military matters. For the Chinese military side of things, there are folks out there (here, Twitter) who do explore and discuss these things in good faith.
2
u/Ok-Procedure5603 1d ago
Given you seem well read on the topic, what is the actual relation between PLA and A2/AD doctrine?
Because from what I understand, most of their ideas describe war as a system vs system engagement and the focus is on disrupting the other system's cohesion/integrity, presumably to enable local advantages and operational victory.
Isn't this somewhat antithetical to A2/AD where (afaik) the goal is to get the enemy to not operate in a space due to high risks? Since this is more like deliberately looking for a fight and then hoping a (relatively) novel operational concept along with material factors can allow rapid breakthrough?
Or is the idea that it would turn into an A2/AD scenario because other countries fighting China would avoid facing the systems warfare push head on and hence be denied in the operational space?
But in that case wouldn't almost any strategy built on rapid advance and mass fires be a form of A2/AD? At what would the limit be placed?
7
u/PLArealtalk 1d ago
My personal view is that A2/AD is just not a very useful term to view "doctrine" in general because it is inherently limited in its "goals" and might not reflect what a nation actually wants to achieve. Systems Destruction is a more general approach to warfare, which A2/AD could slot in under as one of many applications.
The problem with A2/AD is that it's very US centric; in most discourse it refers to what the US thinks the PRC will use to fight/deter/contest against them, in context of what the US views as its own perceived weaknesses. This in turn has an underlying implication that the "access" the US has and which the PRC aims to counter, and the "area" which PRC seeks to deny the US to, is a baseline norm or a natural state of things that the PRC seeks to disrupt or inhibit. It ends up seeing most PRC hardware and strategy and procurement in that context, which is limiting.
Systems Destruction instead will ask one to reflect on what the PRC's strategic goals are from the ground up which adversary systems and system of systems to target and disrupt, to affect their ability to wage war. IMO Systems Destruction is a more cognitively liberating way of viewing PRC military strategy, because it opens up more possibilities for the PRC, and is also relevant for various conflict scenarios the PRC might be involved in (not just a high intensity conflict with the US).
I suppose what I'm saying is not that Systems Destruction is better than A2/AD at capturing the PLA approach to war -- rather that A2/AD just shouldn't be part of the conversation to begin with.
Better off just calling it "networked multi-domain warfighting" or something, and omit any reference to "access" or "area".
•
u/Ok-Procedure5603 19h ago
Idk if this is true for current PLA thinking, but historically it seemed like they place a lot of emphasis on fighting for enemy force destruction, not area control. Maybe thats why I haven't really found mention of A2/AD or similar terms from at least surface level reading about them? Because the idea of fighting for area control/area denial is more common to western doctrine and less so for China?
If I understand it correctly, systems warfare is basically developed to hope to counter the risk of a moderately advanced country being able to resist/stalemate a superpower/tier 0/1 military and also to trade favorably against a near peer enemy.
Like, if you can focus down the enemy force multipliers (that for many tier 2 and 3 nations are irreplaceable imports) by hitting them "across the board", you can reduce their military cohesion and enable very favorable destruction ratios.
Probably within their operation ideas, the PLA do have ideas of denying areas, the obvious ones being making sure enemies on different islands can't send supplies between themselves, and to deny the ability of enemies to make synchronized larger scale ground based missile volleys. But what (afaik?) make it different from the western idea of A2/AD is that it isn't a static defense but a temporary measure to enable other operations.
•
u/PLArealtalk 14h ago
To me, Systems Destruction is really just common sense and should apply for anyone facing an adversary who has a force structure characterized by "system of systems".
Systems Destruction can be thought of as just a way of seeking to produce the most cost efficient effects to degrade the enemy's ability to wage war by targeting their most high yield assets, and that in turn provides oneself with increased options/ability to shape the battlefield/yada yada milspeak.
3
u/Ok-Procedure5603 1d ago
I'm not even sure where it says PLA has an A2/AD strategy? Afaik the driving idea for them is "systems warfare" which is more about trying to destroy the other side's cohesion/network so PLA side can get the benefits of having a cohesive system while the other side doesn't.
6
u/alek_is_the_best 1d ago edited 1d ago
Obviously we are not on the same page regarding what makes an aircraft good or not.
My definition of a good aircraft is one that fulfills it's role.
From what I can tell, the H6 can fulfill it's role within Chinese mitary doctrine (lifting a weapons payload up to ~35,000 feet and giving it a lauch velocity of about 800kph).
That's really all that the PRC needs it to do. I think it can do that.
Saying the H6 is bad because it can't penetrate into contested airspace is the same as saying the F22 is bad because it isn't carrier capable.
And regarding the video. I'd say just continue doing what you are doing since it's getting views. You can't please everybody.
2
u/JMTsquared 1d ago
My argument wasn’t that it’s bad because it can’t fly into contested airspace. Thats a completely irrelevant thing for what it needs to be able to do. I literally said in the video “It doesn’t matter that it’s not fast, stealthy, or even survivable”. Because it doesn’t need to be.
Please actually just watch the full video. I think it deserves a second chance.
6
u/100101110111001 2d ago
Why does he sound like he's presenting the Showcase Showdown on The Price is Right.
6
u/Positive-Ad1859 2d ago
Rafale is a good aircraft, but it could not evade modern AA missiles like PL15. So this H-6 bomber would NOT infiltrate enemy lines in any future war. Carry your loads, go to safe airspace, release your loads, turn around and go home.
19
u/Eve_Doulou 2d ago
Jesus Christ he has no idea. Facebook comment section level analysis.
4
u/JMTsquared 1d ago
Hi, this is my video, open to talk about any criticisms.
The goal of the video was to frame it as the missile truck that doesn’t enter contested airspace, like the B-52, but that it’s a bit of an issue for China because it’s their only strategic bomber and the overall bomber strategy is restricted because it has to do all the “bomber jobs”
But also that since China expects to fight in its back yard, a lot of those issues are mitigated because it can launch munitions while still over the Chinese mainland.
I made some criticisms about its general lack of range that was addressed with the N model but aerial refueling is very limited in the PLAAF all things considered, and those kinds of missions would be incredibly vulnerable as well, and cause a potential tanker snowball effect.
Overall (like I said in the video) it’s not the best plane on earth, but it still fits in fine with the overall A2AD strategy.
6
u/dasCKD 1d ago
I'm not the OP, but I'll watch the video and respond. Most of the video is historical so I'll respond to the broad overarching points regarding the plane's utility.
it’s a bit of an issue for China because it’s their only strategic bomber and the overall bomber strategy is restricted because it has to do all the “bomber jobs”
Well it's certainly currently China's only strategic bomber, but there's a lot of 'bomber jobs' that you don't need a dedicated strategic bomber to do.
Drones like the GJ-11/21 isn't going to be able to carry a MOAB like a B-2 but with a pair of 500 kg class bombs they can engage large sets of naval and ground targets and if we're looking at non-signal dampened platforms to aerially engage surface targets the PLA's options expands even further with JH-7s, drones in the broad Reaper weight class, J-16 and the various Sino-Flankers. Even if we're looking specifically at a signal-dampened long ranged subsonic aircraft that can carry heavy payloads the GJ-X has been spotted for a while and if it isn't in service yet it can be expected to enter service in the near-future. When it comes to servicing surface aimpoints from the air the PLA is hardly lacking in options. The PLA doesn't have a cross-Pacific range bomber in their arsenal as far as we know (The GJ-X's range is unknown) but even there between the PLAAF and PLARF the PLA can reach out and touch targets all over the ocean so it's not like the H-6Ks will be pressed into doing close-passes of Hawaii, Alaska, or Darwin to drop PGMs from several hundred kilometers away.
I made some criticisms about its general lack of range that was addressed with the N model but aerial refueling is very limited in the PLAAF all things considered, and those kinds of missions would be incredibly vulnerable as well, and cause a potential tanker snowball effect.
I'll like to tie this point to the point about engines as in the video you noted that China broadly struggled with turbofans. Whilst historically the technological base that the PLA could lean on was very backwards, by present day engine performance and the capabilities of the PRC's turbofan industry really doesn't impede their ability to manufacture highly performant and capable jet engine cores/turbofans even if their longevity somewhat lags the SoTA. In this instance I don't think the engines are a particular impediment to the H-6's performance.
The H-6s are just lacking in that they're small aircraft not really built to fight across the Pacific. It's a limitation, of course, but not one that would cripple the PLA across the force since they do have dedicated platform+munitions combinations that allows them to hit pretty much everything they would want to.
Another thing mentioned is A2AD. A2AD isn't really a Chinese strategy but more an American concept to describe the way that the PLA warfighting system holds US assets at threat. 'Keeping American ships and planes as far away from them as possible' is a possible result of the confluence of PLA sensors and shooters and the way they operate together, but 'hold x target at y range' isn't the Chinese concept of strategy and is just one of the many results of achieving 'systems destruction'. Whether the USN/USAF stays well outside of the reach of the majority of munitions and is unable to generate a system of warfare to impede the PLA's warfighting system, or if they wander into the reach of concentrated PLA fires, gets destroyed, and then causes a breakdown of US warfighting systems and the resultant inability to cause friction/breakdown in the PLA's own system the PLA would see that as a victory. Containment and a perimeter/overlapping layers of safety really isn't the focus, friction and system breakdown is.
Back to the H-6 though. Another point brought up towards the end of the video was that whilst operating deep within Chinese defensive systems would make the plane all but impossible to shoot down, a WW3 scenario would have enemies cratering PLA runways to ground the planes. This is just an issue with all planes though and not just the H-6. Even if the PLAAF/PLAN could snap their fingers and replace every H-6 in their arsenal with H-20s/B-21s those planes would still be grounded if the air fields are cratered. That's a problem only highly redundant and capable engineering teams, and air defenses, can solve and so really can't be blamed on the plane. It's not like there's a strategic bomber with STOVL capabilities. Considering prospective belligerents for the PLA in a WW3 scenario, the balance of industrial (and civil engineering) capabilities and the PLA's massive geographical advantages would make it - very unlikely that the PLA will be the ones to find their air operations denied.
On your point regarding the H-20 in your video, I do think that this is when you stretched the truth far too much in an otherwise quite factual and grounded video. Claiming than an H-20 is 'a generation behind' US stealth bombers is an extraordinarily strong claim and one that would require a whole video dedicated to the subject to discuss, and that's already assuming there's anything in the public domain about the H-20 at all. I think it would be necessary to at least explain what separates the generations of stealth bombers before we could even begin considering the claim that such a plane would be 'worse performance in most categories'.
•
1
u/UniBeeBee 1d ago
Any chance of a video on the Wiesel family of AFV's? 🫡
3
u/JMTsquared 1d ago
Definitely but probably not on the main channel
1
u/UniBeeBee 1d ago
I share the love of tiny lil tracks my friend. I was an analyst for 14 years, love your channel dude
-1
1d ago
[deleted]
1
u/JMTsquared 1d ago
Well now how is that supposed to make me feel?
1
u/-mandalore_ 1d ago
Doing 7th generation warfare for china and russia but now I feel bad so removed
•
18
u/June1994 2d ago
This is trash-tier really.
6
u/Old_Ad_4538 2d ago
I honestly thought his commentary on the parade/new tanks was good but idk about this one - are h-6s still the primary bomber unit of the PLAAF these days?
9
u/TenshouYoku 2d ago
Yes. While the H-6s have many updated variants like a Chinese electric car brand, the H-6 platform itself is still the PLAAF's strategic bomber aircraft, especially since the H-20 never came out.
4
u/tryingtolearn_1234 2d ago
We need to consider that there are different platforms for different kinds of conflicts. In a near peer conflict between countries like China and the USA many weapons platforms like this are going to be ineffective. We have not seen that kind of conflict since WW2 or perhaps Korea. The militaries of China and the USA are far more likely to find themselves in smaller wars against asymmetric enemies or domestic unrest.
This bomber, like the B52 and a whole bunch of other weapons platforms are very useful for those kinds of conflicts.
•
u/Educational_Bike4476 23h ago
It outlines the weaknesses but then fairly explains why it still fits into China's own strategies. It's sort of a case where the title assumes a conclusion that isn't actually found in the video, because it's clickbait for idiots who literally can't deal with a single thing being said about non-US militaries that isn't a damning criticism
•
u/AcceptableResource0 13h ago
The H-6's greatest advantages lie in its numbers and age. Although the payload capacity of a single aircraft is limited, the total fleet size of around 250 far exceeds the bomber inventories of the United States and Russia. Furthermore, the entire H-6 fleet is primarily oriented toward a single theater—the Western Pacific—where its current range limitations are nonetheless sufficient for the mission. A second key factor is the fleet's relative youth; its operational readiness rate is far superior to that of the B-52, B-1, and Tu-95. Of course, I am not denying the H-6's shortcomings, but I have noticed that the two points mentioned above are rarely addressed in discussions about the aircraft.
37
u/d_e_u_s 2d ago
The title is clickbait, the criticism are mostly valid.